juillet 11, 1997 Again, I must say how pleased I was to appear before your Committee and how humbled I was at your suggestion that I might play a role in achieving the goals of this plan. As I said in Washington, I will never rest until peace and security is restored in Lebanon. Please feel free to contact me at any time in the future if I can be of further assistance to you or members of your Committee. Sincerely. ཕ་༢ན་ཧན།/ Amine Gemayel President of Lebanon, 1982-1988 juillet 11, 1997 THE GEMAYEL PLAN: AN INTERIM STEP TOWARDS REGIONAL PEACE With progress towards peace in the Middle East currently stalled, former Lebanese President Amine Gemayel has stepped into the breach to offer what U.S. Rep. Ben Gilman described as a fair, reasonable and constructive proposal for an interim first step towards a general settlement in the region. Gilman, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, made these remarks at his June 25 hearing on Lebanon in Washington following the former president's testimony, during which Mr. Gemayel unveiled his plan. A paradigm for peace, not a fuse for war The Gemayel Plan is based on the belief that Lebanon can most usefully serve as a paradigm for the general peace process, from which other settlements can be built, at the same time removing what continues to be a fuse which has the potential to reignite war at any time. Mr. Gemayel believes resolution of the tensions in and over Lebanon would constitute a breakthrough in the peace process while simultaneously helping restore Lebanon's full independence and sovereignty. As the State Department itself testified at Chairman Gilman's hearing, the 60,000-strong Lebanese army has been rebuilt, modernized and now is receiving professional training to the extent that, with the help of UNIFIL, it has the capacity to maintain order in the country. The window of opportunity The former president believes that, in the face of the current stalemate, there is a window of opportunity for holding talks on his plan. All the parties involved in the bloody conflict on the Lebanon-Israeli borders-Lebanon, Syria, Israel and the Hizbollah-have made policy statements which could form the basis for inviting the governments involved to the table to begin a genuine dialogue: ◆ The government of Lebanon has expressed support for United Nations Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426, which call for an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and for the establishment of permanent security arrangements; ◆ Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, through his «Lebanon First>> proposal, has offered a plan to withdraw the Israeli army from Lebanon on condition of ensuring the security of Israel's northern borders; ♦ Hizbollah has stated that it is prepared to disarm once Israel has withdrawn its forces from Lebanon. juillet 11, 1997 Damascus, which, with 30,000 soldiers in Lebanon, has a strong influence on the Lebanese govemment, could be expected to react positively to a new initiative which would resume the stalled dialogue between Damascus and Washington and revive Syria-Israel negotiations in jeopardy. The United States as catalyst What is needed to jump-start this process right now, according to Mr. Gemayel, is a catalyst. He believes that because of its power, prestige and longstanding role in the region, the United States is best positioned to take advantage of this «window of opportunity>> to bring together the three governments-Lebanon, Israel and Syria-again, as they came together in the 1991 Madrid Conference, to develop a mechanism for the implementation of this plan. The U.S. can help rebuild confidence-which is sorely lacking at the current time-among some of the main Arab parties involved in the peace process with Israel, with Lebanon as the paradigm for peace. The elements of the plan The former Lebanese head of state believes that for his plan to succeed, it is essential that it be negotiated as an integrated package under U.S. leadership, with an incremental approach to restoring Lebanon's security under full sovereignty. There are three fundamental principles to which he would hope all parties would subscribe as a basis for negotiations on specific implementing steps: 1. Israeli withdrawal and strong, effective security arrangements to be achieved in southern Lebanon, under U.S. leadership, in compliance with U.N. resolution 425 and 426, and in accordance with Mr. Netanyahu's «Lebanon First>>> proposal; 2. The redeployment of the Syrian army in the eastern Lebanon border as a first step towards full withdrawal, in compliance to the 1989 Taif Agreement, which the U.S. has endorsed. 3. Development of a timetable for the achievement of genuine, national consensus in preparation for free and fair elections in which, under international supervision, all citizens of Lebanon would participate. Conclusion Mr. Gemayel believes realization of the his Interim Step Towards Regional Peace would be an important breakthrough which would end the stalemate while creating a new momentum and confidence towards a general peace settlement. Question for the Record Submitted to June 25, 1997 Answer Incorporates Information as of June 25, 1997 Lebanon Question 1: Lebanon-Syria negotiations should have been held in 1992 for a Syrian troop redeployment from most of Lebanon under the 1989 Taif agreements. Does the State Department expect Lebanon will request the negotiations with Syria to discuss Syrian troop redeployment and withdrawal from Lebanon? If so, when? What is the reason for the failure of Syria and Lebanon to agree on a redeployment as envisioned by the Taif Accord? Has the State Department ever raised the issue of Syrian redeployment with either the Lebanese or Syrian governments? If so, when, and what is their reaction? not, why not? Answer: If The position of the United States in support of Lebanon is clear and unchanged. The U.S. remains committed to * Lebanon's full independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We look forward to the day when Lebanon, at peace with her neighbors and free of all foreign forces, resumes its traditional place in the Middle East. The State Department has raised the issue of Syrian redeployment with the Lebanese government. The Lebanese have informed us that, in their view, Syrian troop withdrawal would be premature. The U.S. is committed to the implementation of the Taif Accord and continues to support UN Resolution 425. Question for the Record Submitted to Answer Incorporates Information as of June 25, 1997 Lebanon Question 2: One of the reasons frequently cited to justify Syria's military presence is stability. Some observers fear that Lebanon would once again slip into a civil war if Syrian forces were withdrawn. Does the United States believe that Syria is a stabilizing factor in Lebanon? Do you think Lebanon would slip into another civil war if Syria troops were withdrawn? Do Syrian armed forces remain in Lebanon to counteract the presence of Israeli forces? Do they help maintain internal stability among the warring factions? What percentage of the Lebanese people favor Syria's role in Lebanon? What percentage would want to see an ultimate union with Syria? Does the State Department have any statistics on that? Answer: It The Lebanese government has told us it considers a Syrian troop withdrawal from Lebanon to be premature. considers the presence of Syrian forces necessary to its internal stability and security. The State Department has no information regarding definitive Lebanese attitudes towards Syria's role in Lebanon, however officials tell us |